; • 




ISO 



i 



1 DP 150 

1 


EARLY DOCUMENTS 


RELATING TO 


ENGLISH HISTORY. 




J. P. Maclean. 


November, 1890. 



V*- 



ON SOME EARLI DOCUMENTS IN 
BEITISH HISTORY. 

Part I. — Relating to English History. 

Whoever has given a critical examination of original his- 
tories relating to the early English people is struck, not only 
with the paucity of the documents, but also with their compar- 
ative unreliability. The Roman epoch, in British history, pre- 
sents an intelligent comprehension of the people. The Saxon 
advent is shrouded in mystery and uncertainty. For nearly 
five hundred years English history consists of an age of fable, 
which is only broken by the writings of the venerable Bede, 
which cast a ray of intelligence across that terrible period. 

Modern histories, written for the popular eye, fail to present 
the slender facts upon which their statements rest. But these 
works are mere compilations, — one author copying directly the 
errors of his predecessors, without a careful or unbiased inves- 
tigation into the authenticity of the documents, which had been 
previously relied upon. Proceeding no farther back than 
Henry's "History of Great Britain," published in 1788, it will 
be seen that no suspicion ever crossed his mind relative to the 
authenticity of original documents relating to the Saxon period. 
Even the present generation has witnessed the publication of 
an English history which, apparently is utterly oblivious to the 
progress which has been made in the critical analysis of these 
ancient writings. In Green's "Larger History of the English 
People," nine sections or paragraphs are devoted to the author- 
ities consulted in compiling the first book, or the period from 
A. D. 449 to 1071. The first section declares the Epistola of 
Gildas to be a book " of great value in the light it throws on 
the state of the island at that time, and as giving at its close 
what is probably the native story of the conquest of Kent. 
This is the only part of the struggle of which we have any 

[From July, 1890, Universalist Quarterly.] 



2 On Some Early Documents 

record from the side of the conquered. The English conquerors, 
on the other hand, have left jottings of their conquest of Kent, 
Sussex, and Wessex in the curious annals which form the 
opening of the compilation now known as the 'English ' or 
'Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,' which are undoubtedly historic, 
though with a slight mythical intermixture." A fragment of 
the annals of Northumbria, " which bears the name of Nennuis, 
alone throws light on the conquest of the North." In section 
five it is declared that Asser's " Life of Alfred " " is probably 
really Asser's work, and certainly of contemporary authority," 
and Ethelwerd's chronicle "adds a little to our knowledge of 
this time." Section six says Florence of Worcester " is prob- 
ably the translation of a valuable copy of the ' chronicle ' which 
has disappeared." The various sections also speak approvingly 
of other writings. 

The impression conveyed in this and other modern histories 
is that these early documents are authorities, and upon them 
the essentials of early English history rest. It is admitted that 
the early annals of Britain are necessarily of importance in 
tracing out history, and their proper study cannot be too highly 
estimated. How far these early chronicles can be trusted is a 
question which must be decided on the respective merits of 
each. 

The first and oldest of these books referred to is that of 
Gildas, claimed to have been written about the year 546, which 
has been translated and often printed. The best known edi- 
tions are those of Stevenson in 1834, and Dr. Giles in 1848. 
It consists mostly of violent invectives not only directed against 
the continental invaders, but also against his own countrymen. 
Stevenson, in the preface to his edition of the original Gildas, 
says ; " We are unable to speak with certainty as to his parent- 
age, his country, or even name, the period when he lived, or 
the works of which he was the author." To this Dr. Giles 
makes the following observation : " Such a statement is surely 
sufficient to excuse us at present from saying more on the sub- 
ject." Gibbon 1 speaks very disparagingly of Gildas, while Dr. 

1 Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chap, xsxviii. Vol- III., p. 619 



in British History. 3 

Nicholas 2 has most conclusively shown that no reliability can 
be placed on his work. A careful study of the book demon- 
strates that it exhibits but an indistinct acquaintance with the 
events which took place towards the close of the Roman domi- 
nation : the author declares (Sec. 4), "I shall not follow the 
writings and records of my own country, but be guided by the 
relations of foreign writers : " he contradicts contemporaneous 
Greek and Roman writers, which is evidenced by his statement 
relative to the Roman abandonment of the Island from the 
empire of Maxiruus and the subsequent erection of the Roman 
walls (given in paragraphs 13 and 14) : Boadocea is called 
(Sec. 6 ) " that deceitful lioness." although history has proved 
she had all the attributes of true nobility and heroism : the 
Britons who fought under her are called M crafty foxes " who 
made their backs M shields against their vanquishers, and they 
presented their necks to their swords, whilst chill terror ran 
through every limb, and they stretched out their hands to be 
bound like women : " he never loses an opportunity of heaping 
epithets and disparagement upon his eountrynien. even declar- 
ing, (See. 19) that they were " more eager to shroud their vil- 
lainous faces in bushy hair than to cover with decent clothing 
those parts of the body which required it, '" dec. <£e. : in section 
seven he gives a picture of Britain as a Roman province 
which belies history and all probability, notwithstanding the 
well-known fact that it was a favorite province, the abode of 
many emperors, a rich mine of wealth, and a field of renown 
to some of Rome's ablest generals. During the early part of 
the fifth century the Greek and Roman writers ceased to notice 
the affairs of Britain. From that period the narrative rests 
solely on the authority of Gildas. which in later years was 
adopted by Bede and succeeding writers. These and other con- 
siderations can well excuse the indignant words of Nicholas 3 , 
•* It is time to have done with Gildas. It is clear that, allowing 
he was a real person, and wrote his history at the time com- 
monly supposed, his statements in all matters pertaining to the 
Britons, are wholly unworthy of credence. He pursues them 
- Pedigree of English People, pp. 252, 258 



4 On Some Early Documents 

with an animosity that is never satiated, and belies all au- 
thentic history in branding- them with the character of timidity, 
cowardice, and tame submissiveness when their country was 
being torn from them by strangers. It is impossible to dignify 
such a chronicler by the name of historian, and it is utterly im- 
possible to receive his statements as anything else than the 
splenetic exaggerations of an ill-informed, and prejudiced 
monk." 

Following Gildas is that of Nennuis, thirty-three MSS. of 
which still exist, divided into five classes ; first, the Harleian 
MS. of the tenth century, the text of which formed Stevenson's 
edition of 1838 ; the second, the Vatican MS., which was pub- 
lished by Gunn in 1819 ; the third, later MSS. with marginal 
additions ; the fourth, a class of MSS. in which the marginal 
additions are incorporated into the text ; and fifth, the Irish 
translations. The date of the original is given by some at 
A. D. 796, and by others at 994, or a difference of two hundred 
years. The Vatican MS. gives it at 946 ; the Harleian at 796 ; 
and some of the MSS. of the third class at 879. 4 okene, one 
of the most laborious of historians, admits the work is not only 
one of traditions, but also contains interpolations and additions. 
The Vatican MS. was probably compiled by Mark, the Her- 
mit, who gathered the tracts, written at different periods, by 
various hands, but connected only by the fact that they relate 
to some historical event connected with the British Isles. How 
far these prior tracts are reliable, must largely be left to con- 
jecture. It is also a difficult task to eject the interpolations. 
There appears to have been an original basis for the work. 
This may have been the work of a man by the name of Nennu- 
is, whose original work terminated with the kingdom of North- 
umbria in 547. 

During the obscure period of English history the name best 
known is that of Bede, upon whom the epithet of " The Vener- 
able" has been bestowed. Bede was born in 673 ; at the age of 
thirty, became a monk, and died in 735. He is best known on 
account of his " Ecclesiastical History," which he brought to a 

8 Ibid, p. 258. 4 Chronicles of the Picts and Scots, p. 24. 



in British History. 5 

close in his fifty-ninth year. Numerous editions of this history 
have been published. That this history is of great value is un- 
questionable. But how far may it be trusted ? 

In the literary history of the "Treatise of Marianus," by 
Pislorius, as given by Bishop Nicolson, it is shown, concerning 
ancient books, that passage after passage was added by tran- 
scribers, until it became impossible to distinguish the genuine 
from the fraudulent. It was not unusual with early British 
writers to take the works of their predecessors, add to them 
what they desired, or else abridge them, and give their own 
names as the authors. 

Bede's history has been subjected to the same stuffing pro- 
cess. The internal evidence leads to the supposition that all 
the passages relating to the Saxons should be expunged. It is 
probable that he only knew of the Saxons as a nation to be 
abhorred and shunned. His work purports to be a church 
history ; but in the form now preserved, it is also a secular histo- 
ry. As the book stands it shows obvious anachronisms, which, 
to a man of his learning, must have been readily detected. He 
declares (chap, i.) that in his day there were only five na- 
tions, the English, Britons, Scots, Picts and Romans. In Book 
II., chapter ii., it is evident that by Britons he clearly refers to 
the Welsh. Having stated there were five languages, which 
pertained to the five nations, it is affirmed (Book V. chapter 
ix.) that the English are derived from many nations, six of 
which are named. Angles, Saxons and English are used as 
convertible terms. It is hardly creditable to believe that Bede 
could have confounded the Angles with the Saxons. Bede far- 
ther speaks with affection of the English or Angles, and men- 
tions the Saxons with loathing, declaring that to join hands 
with them involved infamy and disgrace in the eyes of posteri- 
ty (Op. Hist, xiv., 33). It also does great injustice to Bede, 
living so near the date, to cause him to make such gross mis- 
takes in his history relative to the Saxon entrance into Britain. 
In regard to the ancient home of the Angles, he is made to 
contradict both Tacitus and Ptolemy. As regards the date of 
the Saxon advent into England he is made to contradict the 



6 On Some Early Documents 

" Notitia retriusque Imperii," Eutropius, Prospero Tyro, who 
wrote, A. D. 441, and all the early writers who have written 
concerning the Saxons. More than this : he is even made to 
contradict himself ; for after stating the Hengist and Horsa 
legend, he refers to the Saxons fighting the English, twenty 
years earlier. Bede is made to say that all the kings of all the 
Saxon-English nations were of the same blood, when it is well 
known that the Saxons chose their leaders by lot, and the 
choice lay between numberless heads of families. The pedi- 
grees were evidently palmed off upon Bede during a more re- 
cent age. If Bede's history is read in the light it claims to be 
— an ecclesiastical one — it is of great value. Otherwise it is 
calculated to mislead. 

William of Malmesbury, writing about the year 1125 af- 
firms that the death of Bede was fatal to learning in England ; 
for he says, " There was not so much as one Englishman left 
behind Bede, who emulated the glory which he had acquired 
by his studies, imitated his example, or pursued the path to 
knowledge which he had pointed out. A few, indeed, of his 
successors were good men, and not unlearned, but they gener 
ally spent their lives in an inglorious silence ; while the far 
greater number sunk into sloth and ignorance, until by degrees 
the love of learning was quite extinguished in this island for a 
long time." From the death of Bede to the Norman conquest, 
if Asser's " Life of Alfred " and the " Saxon Chronicle " be 
put aside there are no literary remains worthy of notice. As 
to the value of the above mentioned documents particular at- 
tention should be given. 

Asser's "Life of Alfred the Great" was first published by 
Archbishop Parker, in 1574, and appears in Dr. Giles' " Six 
Old English Chronicles," published in 1848. The chronicle 
purports to have been written by a contemporary of Alfred, 
John Asser, bishop of St. David's. Dr. Lingard admits that 
the reputation of Alfred rests upon the authority of Asser ; 
and yet this document is not mentioned by Matthew of West- 
minster ; Ingulphus, author of the " Life of St. Neots ; " Simon 
Durrel ; William of Malmesbury ; Roger de Hoveden ; Henry 



in British History. 7 

of Huntingdon ; John Harding ; Grafton ; Tabian, and others 
upon whom we are to depend for authority ; and the only men- 
tion is made by Florence of Worcester. It seems a little sin- 
gular that this life of the Saxon monarch was never copied by 
any monastery, and left wholly to depend on a single manu- 
script. It has even been questioned whether or not there ever 
was such a bishop of St. David's. The "Saxon Chronicle" 
gives his death at 910 ; but Roger of Wendover and Florence 
of Worcester give it at 883 ; which is in conflict with the 
chronicle itself, for it declares that he became acquainted with 
Alfred in 885. The date of his death given in 910, must cer- 
tainly be an error, for Werslon became bishop in 905, and the 
see then had been vacant for seven years, and Sigelmous be- 
came bishop in 883. The chronicle itself bears internal evi- 
dence of being a forgery. Instances may be cited in the refer- 
ences to the " Life of St. Neots " who was not translated until 
nearly a century after Asser's death ; the history goes down to 
the forty-fifth year of Alfred, and there is not a similar instance 
to be found at so early a period of any man's life being written 
whilst yet living. 

It is deserving of notice that there is a singular coincidence 
between the chronicles and that of Florence of Worcester, the 
latter of which is regarded with strong suspicion even by those 
who seek to maintain the authenticity of Asser. In the trans- 
lation 5 given by Forester, it is positively declared that Flor- 
ence's Chronicle " is formulated on that compiled by Marianus 
Scotus. In a foot-note Forester says, " Florence copied Asser 
so literally that he has twice adopted expressions employed by 
the former." Scotus entered the Irish monastary of St. Mar- 
tin at Cologne, about the year 1056, and died a recluse at 
Mentz about 1083. It is probable that every monastery kept 
a chronicle. Ordericus Vitalis saw that of Worcester about 
the year 1120, and calls it the work of John of Worcester, for- 
mulated upon a chronicle of Marianus Scotus. This chronicle 
is not found at Worcester, but a century later turned up at 
Bury, St. Edmunds, where it was continued by John de Taxted. 
5 See Bohn's Antiquarian Library. Florence of Worcester, Preface. 



8 On Some Early Documents 

In this occurs whole passages from Asser, with all the circum- 
stances that both proceeded from the same pen. It is also sin- 
gular that as Asser is unrecognized by succeeding writers save 
Florence of Worcester, so also none of the contemporaries of 
the latter make use of any of his facts. The great authority 
of that age, William of Malmesbury, utterly ignores him. 
Every evidence points to the inevitable conclusion that the same 
pen which wrote the chronicle of Alfred, also wrote that of 
Florence of Worcester. 

It is probable that Alfred did encourage learning ; but to 
what extent must ever remain a problem. The Saxons had no 
characters of their own, but borrowed from the Latin ; for 
their only known author, Ethelward, wrote in the Latin tongue. 
It is probable that Marianus Scotus caught the stories and 
legends he found floating among the monks, and reduced them 
to a system. How far these are to be trusted must remain a 
matter for conjecture. Living so near the period of Alfred, 
some reliance may be placed in the chronicle. 

There are seven MSS. of the " Anglo-Saxon Chronicle " in 
existence. One of these is preserved in Corpus Christi Col- 
lege, Cambridge, which ends with the year 1070. It is written 
in one hand down to the year 891. It contains many interpo- 
lations. The British Museum contains four copies. One ter- 
minates with the year 977, and is written in one hand. It is 
said to have belonged formerly to the monastary of St. Augus- 
tine's, Canterbury. The second ends with the year 1066, and 
is written in one hand to 890, when the orthography begins to 
vary. It contains many additions not found in the other MSS. 
The third terminates abruptly with the year 1080. It is most- 
ly written in a plain and beautiful hand. Many defective 
parts are apparent from A. D. 261 to 693. The fourth and 
last of the British Museum MSS. ends imperfectly at 1058. 
On account of its monastic interpolations it is generally attri- 
buted to a monk of Christ's Church, Canterbury, being written 
in both Latin and Saxon. A MS. ending A. D. 1154, is pre- 
served in the Bodleian library at Oxford, written in the year 
1122. From 1132 to the end the language and orthography 



in British History. 9 

became gradually Normanized. The Seventh, or Dublin MS., 
although not ancient, yet appears to have been taken from an 
older one, now lost. It ends with the year 1001. From dates 
by Lombard himself, it was begun by him in 1563 and finished 
the following year. This MS. was used by Archbishop Usher, 
and came into possession of Dublin library with others belong- 
ing to the Archbishop, according to his original intention. 

There can be no question but that the " Anglo-Saxon Chron- 
cle" is a compilation. Part of it is copied from Bede, and 
other parts from various sources. If it had been the continu- 
ous work of each age, it would display the improvements and 
gradations or corruptions of the Saxon tongue. But it pre- 
sents an unbroken change, for throughout the language is the 
same, both in regard to its vocabulary and its inflections. 
After the middle of the eleventh century the copies differ con- 
siderably, when independent entries are made. But down to 
this period the identity of composition and similarity of matter 
are too apparent to allow any doubt that the copies were not 
made until this period, and that the record had been made up 
several years before the distribution of the transcriptions had 
been made. It is a singular fact that at about the time the 
chronicle was made up Marianus Scotus took his departure 
from England. Florence of Worcester, under the date 1028 6 
says, " The same year was born Marianus, of Ireland, the cele- 
brated Scot, by whose study and pains, this excellent chronicle 
was compiled from various books." Under the year 1056 he 
writes : "Marianus, becoming a pilgrim for the sake of his 
heavenly country, went to Cologne and took the habit of a 
monk in the monasterv of St. Martin, belono-inff to the Scots." 
Marianus was the most scholarly man in England of his time, 
understanding both Latin and Saxon well, being also familiar 
with the traditions of the country. It is probable he found 
much history of the nation written in Latin, which he recast, 
and then produced it in Saxon. 

As the forged annals of Asser are connected with St. Neots, 
and Peterborough, so famous during that period for literary 

6 See Bohri's edition, p. 136. 



10 On Some Early Documents 

forgeries, is near the monastery, the compilation or forgery of 
the "Anglo-Saxon chronicle" maybe assigned to its region and 
one or more of its monks. There is no original MS. in exist- 
ence, and what copies remain are not found in their proper 
places, but collected by Archbishop Parker and others, from 
very suspicious sources, and later by Cotton, long after the 
Reformation, when the trade in Saxon MS. was in a flourishing- 
condition. 

The chronicle of Ethelward was written about the year 1090. 
It is a very brief work, and ends abruptly with the year 959. 
It professes to give a summary of human affairs from the crea- 
tion. It is simply a dry abstract, written in a few pages of 
affected, and in some places of almost unintelligible Latin. It 
forms the first number of Dr. Giles' " Six Old English Chron- 
icles." 

The paucity of documents, genuine or forged, from the 
Roman withdrawal to the Norman conquest is a sad commen- 
tary on the state of learning during that period and also on the 
influence for good of both the Saxon and the Dane. It would 
appear that the learning and energy displayed by The Vener- 
able Bede would have given an impetus to letters. But there 
was the impinging of races with diverse characteristics, which 
commingling did not develop either into moral or intellectual 
attainment. Apparently the intermixture of blood, after the 
wars were over, destroyed that equipoise which is necessary to 
a healthy advancement. The Norman conquest not only gave 
a fresh supply of blood, but aroused the motives and restored 
that equilibrium which had been uppermost and made itself 
felt during the succeeding ages. 

The real history of the Saxon period may never be known. 
It is impossible to separate the pure grain from the chaff. 
Criticism may point out errors and unreliable statements, but 
to reconstruct what is left is a performance which has not yet 
been accomplished. Even if it be estimated that all the writ- 
ings are authentic and have been preserved with zealous care, 
the history still must be unsatisfactory and disappointing. 



